January 27th, 2010

Mark:

On this, the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi Concentration Camp, I felt this would be a good time to renew my plea to reconsider your decision to allow content which promotes the Anti-Semitic revisionist theory of Holocuast Denial.

This is not a 1st Amendment issue. Facebook has rules. These Rules prohibit hate speech. Holocaust Denial is Anti-Semitic speech. Anti-Semitic Speech is hate speech.  Hate speech leads to hate crimes against not only Jews but Muslims, Gays, African-Americans, and other protected classes. The ghosts of Martin Luther King, Matthew Shepard and Stephen Tyrone Johns can speak all to well to that.

While I agree that Facebook would never tolerate speech as we recently saw on Twitter threatening to go on a “Jew Killing Spree“  history and today’s remembrance teaches us that such sprees have occurred, can occur again and are directly fueled by hate speech.  Let there be no doubt.  Holocaust Denial is hate speech.

There is no dispute that Facebook’s Statement Of Rights And Responsibilities prohibit the uploading of hateful content. It is in black and white. Below is my original letter. I hope you will read it again and think about what hate speech is really all about and what Facebook’s social responsibilities are in providing a platform for and monetizing such such rhetoric.

Below is the letter I wrote to you back in May. Please take another look and think about hate content that leads to horrific hate crimes and what Facebook’s responsibility is in that regard.

May 10, 2009

Mark:

The last 7 days have seen much debate on the issue of Holocaust Denial Groups on Facebook.  There has been a lot of focus on the issues of free speech, open discussion of controversial issues and Facebook Terms Of Service(TOS).

While I have made it clear that I would like to see these groups removed, I have done a poor job in articulating why. I attempted to take a short-sighted, back door “lawyer’s approach” with Facebook by alleging that Holocaust Denial was illegal in other countries and, therefore, a violation of Facebook TOS.  While at the time, these were legitimate issues, I should have focused on the real issue.  The issue of the proliferation of Facebook groups that promote hatred of religious and ethnics groups and the hate speech those groups perpetrate. While you may have your doubts, I submit that this includes those who promote the fringe revisionist theory of Holocaust Denial.

The Holocaust Denial movement  is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like minded individuals to do the same.  Allowing these groups to flourish on Facebook under the guise of “open discussion”  does nothing more than help spread their  message of hate.  Is this the kind of open discussion that Facebook wants to encourage?  Is this really where you want to draw your line?

It is undisputed that as a collective , Holocaust Deniers are overwhelmingly antisemitic.  One cannot be separated from the other.   They use a fringe, discredited historical theory as a pretext and rallying point to perpetrate and promote their message of hate using Facebook as  recruiting ground.   By allowing these groups whether they number 1 or 1000, Facebook is not promoting open discussion of  a controversial issue.  It is  promoting and encouraging hatred towards ethnic and religious groups, nothing more.

By claiming open discussion as the rationale for allowing these groups to exist, Facebook is playing games with semantics.  Facebook is taking form over substance to protect their imaginary subjective corporate line in the sand they have drawn.

If Facebook is serious about encouraging open discourse on controversial subjects,  let’s start with Facebook itself.  Let’s talk about the controversial decision to allow Holocaust Denial groups.  Let’s talk about transparency.  Sending out canned email answers or spouting canned corporate-speak in an interview is not transparent.  I would like to see transparency on the specifics of how Facebook went about arriving at this controversial decision.  I would like you to address the following questions:

In a CNN interview,   Facebook representative Barry Schnitt stated:

“It’s a difficult decision to make. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk about it,” Schnitt said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”

Mark, I would like to know who at Facebook was involved in the “internal debate”  that resulted in the decision that Holocaust Denial does not constitute hate speech.  Were you involved?  Do you offer any input in these types of discussions?  How does Facebook define “internal debate”? How many people were involved?  What was their expertise to discuss this issue?  Did they bring their personal beliefs to the table?   What safeguards were employed to ensure objectivity in a decision that is innately subjective?  Were attorneys consulted that have experience in such matters or was it general counsel?  Do you agree that something can be legal but still constitute hate speech?  Was the final decision yours?  Did the buck stop with you?

I would also like to know what experts were consulted on this issue.  Were any Holocaust Denial experts consulted?  Were any experts on antisemitism consulted?   Were any hate speech experts in general  consulted?  If so, I would appreciate it if you would identify these experts spoken of by Barry Schnitt in his CNN interview.

Finally, Mark, in an interview for the CNET blog “Technically Incorrect”, Barry Schnitt stated:

“One thing to consider that someone actually mentioned in the thread was the idea that there may be a benefit to having these ideas discussed in the open. Would we rather Holocaust denial was discussed behind closed doors or quietly propagated by anonymous sources? Or would we rather it was discussed in the open on Facebook where people’s real names and their photo is associated with it for their friends, peers, and colleagues to see?”

Is this an official corporate statement from Facebook on how Holocaust Denial should be addressed in society?  What kind of open discussion was Mr. Schnitt talking about?   How was he defining  “open discussion”?  How does Facebook define “open discussion”?  What experts did Facebook consult in coming to the conclusion that “open discussion” was the most appropriate way to deal with this subject?   Are you aware of the Jewish/Holocaust historical significance of such a statement Mark?   I sent an email to Facebook asking for clarification of his statement but received no response other than the canned ,”we received your email”.

Mark, I hope you will take the time to respond to these important questions and issues, not just with regards to the Holocaust Denial issue, but with regards to transparency in how Facebook subjectively comes to these types of decisions in general.

Sincerely

Brian Cuban

©2010 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

I was watching Al Gore on Fox news the other night.  The debate was Global Warming.  Al Gore was on the defensive trying to defend is his position that man-made Global Warming was real and imminent. He then went on to call all those who disagreed with him “Global Warming Deniers”  I must be living in a cave because I had never heard that term used before.

I immediately got a knot in my stomach. It was a knot of history.  A knot of irritation at Al Gore for his ignorance of history and the power of the spoken word.

It had nothing to do with my views on Global Warming.  I got the knot in my stomach because I felt that Al Gore has intentionally attached the word “denier” to call up either conscious or sub-conscious images of the Holocaust.  Drawing on a subtle context and back of the mind imagery specifically designed to cause a subtle,  parallel inference in the viewer/listener.

I do not dispute that the term “denier” has been around for a long time pre-dating its attachment to Holocaust Denial,  a discredited revisionist historical theory that has been around since the 60’s.

There however, is also no disputing that in modern times the term “denier”, when attached to a scientific or other theory has become inextricably entwined with the Holocaust.  Attached to discredit those who are “denying the obvious”  I do not dispute Al Gore’s right to use it.  But why use it?  Why use it unless you are intentionally trying to draw up subtle inferences parallel with the Holocaust. THAT, in my  mind is inappropriate.

Is the highly educated Mr Gore claiming that in his entire internal linguistics  database there is no other appropriate way to make his point with the same force?

Am I being too sensitive? Possibly.  I still do not like it. When I feel like the term is purposely being used to draw on the Holocaust I feel like my history is being denied.  Regardless of my views on Global Warming, I view it as a desperation move on Mr. Gores part.  A move that is beneath his intellect and intent.

I wish he would stop.  Mr. Gore, please stop using that term

About 18 years ago I went on a blind date.  That in itself is not remarkable.  I have been on quite a few of those in my day.  She was very striking in appearance.  She was just a little shorter than I am at 6′2, blond hair and piercing blue eyes. While I can not remember it off hand, I do remember her last name was pure unadulterated German.  There was no mistaking this girl’s ancestry was Rhine wine through and through.

After our third date she offered to cook me dinner.  Being that I never had more than a box of rice and 6 pack of Tab in my kitchen(not much as changed on that front) I took her up on it.

When I entered her apartment what I saw took my breath away.  On her mantle above the fireplace was a Waffen SS Helmet ,Hitler Youth Knife and some type of decorative Swastika. The Waffen SS is a notorious Nazi military unit considered  part of the “tip of the sword” in the planning and implementation of The Holocaust.

I couldn’t breath.  I walked to the fireplace and picked up the Hitler Youth Knife.   Trying to remain clam, and in a steady voice,  I quietly asked her where she got them.  She told me her deceased grandfather had served in the German army and had passed the items on to her.  Breathing a little heavier and in a higher pitched voice I asked her if she knew I was Jewish.  She stated that she had no idea what my religion was and that  she was deeply sorry if the items offended me.  I did not say another word, turned around and walked out.  That was that.

I had no reason to believe she was Antisemitic.  In hindsight 18 years later, I believe the only context around the items was to show off what her grandfather had given  her.  To this day I have no idea if she even knew the “Jewish significance” of the items.  Believe it or not, there are many out there who have limited,if any comprehension of the Holocaust. They are not deniers, just uneducated on the subject beyond the woefully inadequate coverage in their high school history class.

None of that ran through my mind 18 years ago.  As I held that Hitler youth knife, she was Hitler incarnate.  While her background ruled out a compatible future, beyond that, was I being fair?  Context is everything.

I never thought of that incident again until today.   I was jogged back to that evening by reading a series of articles full of accusations, retorts and supposition surrounding a Huffington Post Blogger’s collection of Nazi Memorabilia.

Marc Garlasco, is a former Pentagon intelligence officer, and senior military analyst of Human Rights Watch(HRW).  He has been a harsh critic of Israel, accusing the state of war crimes.

It is now being reported that  that Garlasco is an avid collector of Nazi and American wartime memorabilia. He has also reportedly made what some would consider insensitive and inappropriate remarks on memorabilia collector web sites with regards to some of his Nazi artifacts.

Many bloggers and other critics have tagged him as a Nazi, Nazi Sympathizer etc.  They have called into question his past and future credibility in work that in some aspects by it’s very nature innately carries the specter of Nazi Germany and The Holocaust.

Garlasco responded with an article in the Huffington Post defending his right to collect such memorabilia and providing the context for the collection.

In my mind, understanding the context of such activities is vital in coming to judgment about them and him or anyone who collects controversial historical artifacts that by their very nature offend certain groups.  Nazi memorabilia would certainly fall within that classification.

Context is important because  the collection and display of Nazi memorabilia  can be and often is a form of Anti-Semitic hate speech in itself.  eBay recognized this when it banned the buying and selling of such merchandise world wide.

Would I be offended if someone had a Nazi Swastika framed or displayed on the wall of their home even if I knew he was a collector? Absolutely.  The only context I take from that is at worst Antisemitism and at least, crass insensitivity to who may lay eyes on it and be offended. I would not even ask for an explanation.  I am out of there never to return.

If I walk into that same collector’s home and saw a plaque with various signs and patches of the Axis, including a Swastika, on one side and of the Allies on the other?   That has a different context to me and I probably would not be offended.  I would want to know more. I would at least want more information to gain better context to know what I am dealing with.

Are there some Nazi items that are so closely associated with human suffering as to transcend appropriate historical context for a legitimate personal collection.  I believe so.  If I find out that Garlasco has a Zyklon B canister in his collection my context for his activities will change drastically.

I do not agree with  Garlasco’s opinions and conclusions as to Israel.  I however, am not going to put his personally distasteful beliefs and conclusions together with his Nazi collection and conclude that he possesses pro-Nazi or antisemitic sentiments.  While there is certainly a creepy paradox in someone who reports on alleged war crimes collecting Nazi items, I am unclear as to what this entire revelation is supposed to clarify.  If you believe he is anti-Israel and biased in his conclusions then what does the collection add to the mix?  Is this supposed to be some “final nail” to say  “a ha I told you so”?  His credibility is now more in question?  It’s backwards circular logic that diminishes and detracts from the real issues.

My friends and family know I am fascinated with WWII history, the Holocaust and yes the history of Nazi Germany. I have write on these subjects regularly on my blog.   I have Holocaust history on my mother’s side.  While I would never buy a Swastika,  I have often looked at Holocaust artifacts for sale on eBay.  While I have never bought anything,  I have though about it.  There are those that may find that creepy.   To me it is part of my lifelong search for knowledge ,understanding and personally historical context.

Context people context…

Copyright 2009.

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant.

German prosecutors have formally charged John Demjanjuk on with 27,900 counts of being an accessory to murder at a Nazi death camp during World War II.

German doctors had previously determined that Demjanjuk is fit to stand trial on charges that he was an accessory to murder at Sobibor, a Nazi death camp.  Doctors state that the 89-year-old retired auto worker, recently deported from the United States, can stand trial so long as his time in court does not exceed two 90-minute sessions daily.

The charges still must be accepted by the court but this is generally considered a formality. Prosecutors and Demjanjuk’s defense attorney, said the trial could begin by autumn.

A key witness against Demjanjuk recently  stepped forward dealing a devastating blow to his claims of mistaken identity. Alexander Nagorny, a former concentration camp guard will testify that he not only worked with Demjanjuk in a camp but lived with him for a period of time.

Nagorny will be a key witness against the 89-year-old Demjanjuk.  He will testify that he worked with Demjanjuk at a concentration camp in Flossenburg, Germany, and lived with him after the war in Landshut, a Bavarian city near Munich.  While he does not put Demjanjuk at Sobibor, if believed it is a severe blow to Demjanjuk’s case as he has steadfastly claimed he is the victim of mistaken identity and was never a concentration camp guard.  The fact that Nagorny lived with Demjanjuk makes his testimony uniquely powerful and unlike others in similar trials who claimed that they served with or only saw a particular guard in a camp. This type of testimony  could often be discredited based on the combination of brief interactions, mistaken identity and passage of time.  His testimony is also crucial because if believed it ties Demjanjuk to a specific concentration camp guard I.D number. That same number places Demjanjuk at Sobibor, the camp in which he is accused of committing war crimes.

Like Demjanjuk, Nagorny is old and very ill.  If his health renders him unavailable to testify at trial, his testimony at a preliminary hearing will be admissible.

Get ready for what should be the most publicized Nazi War Crimes trial since Adolf Eichmann and what should be the last chance to relive history before it is relegated to the history books.